References: [2003] UKHL 24, [2003] NI 224, [2003] 1 WLR 1187, [2003] 2 Cr App R 26 Links: House of Lords, BailiiCoram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there. Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request had already been made at a police station, which request had not been superseded. Statutes:Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/2994)This case cites:

Cited – Butler v Easton QBD ([1970] RTR 109) The initial formalities of a request for a specimen of blood took place at one police station, but no doctor was available there and the suspect was taken to another police station where a specimen was given. He challenged his conviction on the . .

Cited – Milne v M’Donald HCJ ([1971] JC 40) The court was asked whether a blood specimen having been requested at one police station, it could be taken at another. Held: The requirement to provide a specimen for a laboratory test is something different from the actual providing of the . .

Cited – Pascoe v Nicholson HL ([1981] 1 WLR 1061) A specimen of blood was required at one police station but provided at another. Held: The request was validly made. . .

Confirmed – Howard v Hallett QBD ([1984] RTR 353) The police adduced in evidence against the defendant the analysis of a specimen of breath which was not the specimen required under the Act. Held: The evidence of the analysis of the specimen relied on by the police was inadmissible in . .

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn) HL (Gazette 15-Feb-01, House of Lords, Times 15-Dec-00, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 63, [2001] 2 WLR 56, [2001] 2 AC 91) A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence . .

Cited – Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD (Times 09-Feb-93, [1993] RTR 209, [1993] Crim LR 968) The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution. Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would . .